Alwyn Davey

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Dappa, I reckon you could've just written that line and your point would still be well made, and correct for mine. I think it's a bit hard to take someone's arguement seriously when they dismiss the only benchmark you can assess recruiters on because they're "not interested".

I'll give you the same opportunity Nash, tell me if you think we have done better than the clubs I mentioned. Perhaps you would like to look at other clubs I don't mind just tell me which ones?

I'm happy to look at the results after our first selection, will that help?

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_draf...amp;t=N&s=P

There's the link, go for it.

[Whispering_Jack 30,200]

I have to endorse what George wrote about Alwyn Davey when he did his pre season with us. He simply didn't show enough to warrant selection on one of our lists. He must have received some good advice as to what was needed to make it to the big stage because he knuckled down, worked on his weakenesses and a year later made an AFL list. I think the same thing happened with his brother who failed to attract any interest after his time in the NT Under 18's team.

Those who knock some our youngsters who have struggled a bit in the pre season matches should consider the journey taken by the Davey brothers. There's been some criticism levelled at the likes of Isaac Weetra and Austin Wonaeamirri because they're not instant stars at AFL level but they're both still teenagers and need a year or two at a club before we can assess their real worth.

[deanox 9,931]

Geelong, Brisbane, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, West Coast?

well for starters geelong have had the benefit of some great father son drafts we didn't get. and it is interesting to note that geelong are also the only victorian team that truly has the ability to keep wraps on their local kids, even though they would be watched by other clubs also.

it is interesting therefore that the other 4 sides mentioned are interstate sides. West coast have been blessed with a pile of absolute a grade mids. judd (first round), cousins (father/son), kerr(pick 18 in 2000), embley (pick 57 in 98 draft), some great KPP glass (pick 11 in 1999 ND), cox (rookie in the same year), q lynch (rookie in 2001).

i'm not sure how you could claim their recruiting has been so much better than ours, when they have pulled talls off the rookie lists or otherwise picked up most of their stars with top picks and f/s. WC have drafted well, but they have had some luck and have been very successful with their top picks.

i don't have time to go through the other teams now, but brisbane have had the advantage of paying above the going rate for players due to salary cap concessions. i have been impressed with PA's recruiting.

even if you want to agree that these 5 teams have done better than us over the past 10 years, that still puts us in the position of being possible the 6th best recruiter over the course of that decade, and perhaps the most successful metropolitan victorian team at recruiting. which is similar to the stats that say that after essendon we were the most successful victorian team in that period (in terms of finishing positions and finals appearances).

[Dee Fan 3,247]

well for starters geelong have had the benefit of some great father son drafts we didn't get. and it is interesting to note that geelong are also the only victorian team that truly has the ability to keep wraps on their local kids, even though they would be watched by other clubs also.

it is interesting therefore that the other 4 sides mentioned are interstate sides. West coast have been blessed with a pile of absolute a grade mids. judd (first round), cousins (father/son), kerr(pick 18 in 2000), embley (pick 57 in 98 draft), some great KPP glass (pick 11 in 1999 ND), cox (rookie in the same year), q lynch (rookie in 2001).

i'm not sure how you could claim their recruiting has been so much better than ours, when they have pulled talls off the rookie lists or otherwise picked up most of their stars with top picks and f/s. WC have drafted well, but they have had some luck and have been very successful with their top picks.

i don't have time to go through the other teams now, but brisbane have had the advantage of paying above the going rate for players due to salary cap concessions. i have been impressed with PA's recruiting.

even if you want to agree that these 5 teams have done better than us over the past 10 years, that still puts us in the position of being possible the 6th best recruiter over the course of that decade, and perhaps the most successful metropolitan victorian team at recruiting. which is similar to the stats that say that after essendon we were the most successful victorian team in that period (in terms of finishing positions and finals appearances).

We all have our opinions on this matter, I have mine and may be in the minority. Following is an example of the recruiting done by the club, this draft in 2001 was a goldmine and we finished up with sawdust.

2001 Melbourne

9 Luke Molan

25 Steven Armstrong

26 Aaron Rogers

55 Brad Miller

Missed

10 Sam Power F

13 Nick Dal Santo ST

16 Rick Ladson H

17 James Kelly G

21 Matthew Maquire ST

22 Mark Seaby WC

23 Charlie Gardner G

24 Steve Johnson G

32 Campbell Brown H

33 David Rodan R

36 Sam Mitchell H

37 Leigh Montagna ST

38 Ashley Hansen WC

60 Adam Schneider S

62 Damon White PA

68 Chris Hyde R

71 Brian Lake WB

76 Jarad Poulton PA

[Gouga 570]

We have got to get over Luke Molan. His career was ruined by injury. Nothing but bad luck and nothing either CC or ND could have predicted.

Good recruiting isn't about cashing in on one particular draft. It is about building a list over time. I believe we are doing that.

Since the 2001 'failure' we have drafted Daniel Bell, Jared Rivers, Colin Sylvia, Brock McLean, Matthew Bate, Lynden Dunn, Michael Newton, Nathan Jones, Simon Buckley, Clint Bartram, James Frawley and Ricky Petterd who will shape our team over the next ten years. Throw in a couple unknows like Colin Garland and Isaac Weetra as well as the new boys including Cale Morton, Jack Grimes and Addam Maric and things to me look positive.

There will always be failures and missed oppurtunities but for mine i just want consistency which is what I believe we are finally achieving.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I always found it confusing that some people rated CAC so highly and yet were critical of the playing list.

[Redleg 40,946]

We all have our opinions on this matter, I have mine and may be in the minority. Following is an example of the recruiting done by the club, this draft in 2001 was a goldmine and we finished up with sawdust.

2001 Melbourne

9 Luke Molan

25 Steven Armstrong

26 Aaron Rogers

55 Brad Miller

Missed

10 Sam Power F

13 Nick Dal Santo ST

16 Rick Ladson H

17 James Kelly G

21 Matthew Maquire ST

22 Mark Seaby WC

23 Charlie Gardner G

24 Steve Johnson G

32 Campbell Brown H

33 David Rodan R

36 Sam Mitchell H

37 Leigh Montagna ST

38 Ashley Hansen WC

60 Adam Schneider S

62 Damon White PA

68 Chris Hyde R

71 Brian Lake WB

76 Jarad Poulton PA

Doesn't look good when you see that list. I would be happy with even the second last on the list, our full back problems would be solved.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

We have got to get over Luke Molan. His career was ruined by injury. Nothing but bad luck and nothing either CC or ND could have predicted.

Good recruiting isn't about cashing in on one particular draft. It is about building a list over time. I believe we are doing that.

Since the 2001 'failure' we have drafted Daniel Bell, Jared Rivers, Colin Sylvia, Brock McLean, Matthew Bate, Lynden Dunn, Michael Newton, Nathan Jones, Simon Buckley, Clint Bartram, James Frawley and Ricky Petterd who will shape our team over the next ten years. Throw in a couple unknows like Colin Garland and Isaac Weetra as well as the new boys including Cale Morton, Jack Grimes and Addam Maric and things to me look positive.

There will always be failures and missed oppurtunities but for mine i just want consistency which is what I believe we are finally achieving.

Have to agree to disagree with you on that.

Geelong picked up all of the ones I mentioned above and James Bartel at 7, they also got Gary Ablett under the father and son and David Johnson at pick 81. That's not a bad core of players to build a premiership around.

[dee3 0]

I have to say Robbie, i am in your corner to a certain degree. I think while we have picked up some very good solid players, the sim[ple fact of the matter is that we dont have a superstar, pure and simple, most clubs have one, we dont, not sure who our last marquee player was. People can argue all they like that clubs get luckie with rookie listed players, but thats all part of the recruiting game. it's hit and miss, and i am sure that every other club has their gripes about missed oppurtunities and poor selections, but the Dee's seem to need a superstar more than eny other club.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Firstly Robbo and Macca were both recruited more than ten years ago. Of the other players you mention, some have proven themselves others are yet to do so. Players are only able to prove themselves as bargains once they have done that, the jury is still out on some of these players. I will give you the same courtesy that you gave me and I won't be bothered answering all of your points, but I will say you seem easily satisfied. You say that you could go on submitting facts but the truth is you haven't given any only opinions, just like me.

You want to talk about my credibility and the fact that I refuse to compare our recruiting with other clubs well lets do so, who would you like to start with, Geelong, Brisbane, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, West Coast? Who do you think has the better record? The thing is it is not just about who you picked up it's all about who you missed as well. If our recruiting department was as good as you believe why did we get so many dud's like Funke, Moorcoft, Molan, Rogers, Breese, Lamb, Armstrong etc. etc.

Do yourself a favour and have a look for yourself, the link I have provided will tell you all you need to now an if you are still convinced that we are super recruiters then you glass is not even half full you have drunk the lot.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_draf...amp;t=N&s=P

Ok... That's a bit more like it...

- I HAVE given proof. Over and over... Every month someone else comes on here and decides that the generally accepted wisdom, with great researchers like Jaded, RR, Deanox and others is garbage... then someone withmore technical smarts gets on and retrieves the stats and the point is proven... Sadly, you are no exception in that when we quote the stats, you cling to your reasoning without addressing these facts in any reasonable way... What I'm trying to say is, the majority here, who've said their piece, will not change your mind no matter WHAT we say... So why bother... Also... Net is expensive where I live, so you'll just have to forgive me for not spending hours on the net.

- Wasn't aware we were having a specific time-frame. Are we talking just CAC or the club here?

- Go through the players again. They have all proven SOMETHING. You're right, some haven't made it yet, but all have had more than 2 seasons (or WILL have more than 2 seasns) for a reason... But I can't say I'm surprised you glossed over that point and made it all about who has "made it." It never ceases to amaze me how people write off the list the fact the good players on the list are still so young...

- Geelong... F/S. Brisbane, benefitted from a HUGE amount of concessions and were disastrous for years, while recruiting the best players in the land. They bottomed out properly, we haven't. Adelaide and West Coast have had better coaches and a bucketload more money. Adeladie turned average players into guns as a habit, and have the best footy technology in the land. West Coast have a great coach, and have gotten VERY lucky with their recruiting. But tey have had their faults. They haven't had a good FF for ages, and a year-and-a-bit ago they were considered the perfect team.

- Once again you miss the point. It's not about who we missed at all... We have about the same amount of duds as everyone else... but AGAIN, gloss over that fact and dig into MFC... It's noble work you're doing.

- You would presume I hadn't looked at the recruiting stats wouldn't you? I've looked over them again and again and can quote most of the details of our recruiting history over the past 5-10 years off the top of my head... Don't think you're "enlightening" me to details I'm not certain of... I choose not to quote them because it would make no difference to your reasoning. I've written papers shorter than this, and you've managed to miss the point at every turn ANYWAY.

- Once again... I never said we were SUPER recruiters... We've had some good ones, and some bad ones... No GREAT ones just yet... We are about breaking even, and have been up for a while... The recruiting I call "good" will come to fruition years from now, not right away. AGIAIN - There's a reason CAC was headhunted... He recruited some gems from out of NOWHERE... His great faults were his KP recruitment and "Star" recruitment which leave something to be desired... On the first point, I think people are right. We're still relying on Neitz and White as our big boys and are still struglling for a KP back. So why do you think I'm calling them "super." We are weak in that area. On the STAR player point, again I agree somewhat, but I would say this... McLean playing for the Bombers or Pies would be considered a star... NO demon will be considered a star until we have a bigger presence in the AFL, media, and among the commentators. The Bulldogs suffer in the same way. Brad Johnson is a good example. It took him til he was past 250 games to get noticed. The Dogs just aren't "sexy" enough.

I think I'm done with this debate. Our recruiting hasnt been perfect, but it has had hughlights. We've been middle of the road in the last 10 years in the regard, and as a result our ladder results have been... well... middle of the road. When we bottom out, and in a year or two from now when Bailey has the list he wants in one place, we'll start to climb again. This is modern recruiting, mate.

And before you take another swing at me... Try to get rid of the idea that I'm "SATISFIED" with what we're like at the moment. I'm hurting like everyone else. I am disagreeing with YOU... ButI continue to support the direction the club is taking. I don't expect perfection like the so-called "experts" on this site, and as such I am willing to wear a few Molans, Rogers and Smiths... If we get many more, I'll join your merry brigade, but for now I think where we are is a reflection of the decisions DB has made for our future, our list turnover, our coach change-over and a severe lack of funds... not a reflection of disastrous recruiting... If you quote me as thinking our recruitment is "super" again or that I am happy with where we stand, I'll know you've not bothered to read my post.

I have another point for you to consider though. I was thinking about this last night. I feel our recruitment is flawed in it's conception in one important way. Let's assume that KP players take longer to develop, let's say 3 years at a minimum. Further, let's assume these players are harder to recruit as they are so young and under-developed, and predcition plays a bigger part in the success of a recruiter... Wouldn't it make sense then to use both your high picks AND your speculative picks to recruit good quality talls a few seasons in a row... and THEN take on the problem of addressing the smaller players. We have a history of our smaller blokes making nearly immediate impact on the team... Jones, McLean, Petterd to name a few... By the time our talls are in their prime (25-30) these guys will be nearing the end of their careers... Now I know we got Bate and Dunn, as well as Juice as a speculative pick all in one year... But Dunn has looked shaky as a KP player, and Juice is still a work in progress...

Basically I'm saying the Hawthorn model is what we should have gone for. Get the Rougheads and Franklins and a few others... give it five or so years and wait for ONE of them to become a star. Dunstall has gone on the record as saying that around the time these two players were picked up, the general consensus was that there were no quality KP players coming through the system, so the Hawks would have a "monopoly." I think there's sme truth to this.

Thoughts?

[Gouga 570]

Have to agree to disagree with you on that.

Geelong picked up all of the ones I mentioned above and James Bartel at 7, they also got Gary Ablett under the father and son and David Johnson at pick 81. That's not a bad core of players to build a premiership around.

I agree Bartel, Steve Johnson and Ablett are great players but I can't give you Gardiner or David Johnson, both fringe and left out of the GF side.

Bartel at 7 meant we couldn't get him even if we wanted too and without the new f/s rule Ablett was never going anywhere but Geelong. As your concerned with OUR recruting we can conclude that CC and ND missed out on Steve Johnson only that year.

The 2001 draft made up 3 out of 22 of Geelong's premiership players which I believe supports my statement that good recruiting is not about cashing on one draft but being consistent over many which is exactly what Geelong were and I believe Melbourne are (or appear to) becoming.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I have to say Robbie, i am in your corner to a certain degree. I think while we have picked up some very good solid players, the sim[ple fact of the matter is that we dont have a superstar, pure and simple, most clubs have one, we dont, not sure who our last marquee player was. People can argue all they like that clubs get luckie with rookie listed players, but thats all part of the recruiting game. it's hit and miss, and i am sure that every other club has their gripes about missed oppurtunities and poor selections, but the Dee's seem to need a superstar more than eny other club.

Our 2000 and 2001 selections were a disaster and of the 8 players selected there is only one left, Brad Miller. Four of the players selected never played one game between them, one played about 10 games and the other two played about 30 games each. In the same time Geelong selected their best player the Norm Smith Medalist and the Brownlow Medalist plus some reasonable cattle to back them up. Now you could say they were lucky and we were unlucky but let's give them some credit and say that they new what they were doing.

As you say we have selected some reasonable young players but we don't have anyone from the 2000/2001 draft hitting their straps now to back them up, that's why we are down the bottom and they are up the top. We had early picks in 2003 but it was a poor draft and we missed out on the super players available in some of the earlier drafts, that's bad luck. We will not know whether the players we have selected over the last two years will come good for a little while yet but hopefully there will be some good times ahead.

I am not super critical of the recruiting just realistic and I can see we have made some major errors in the past but we have also recruited some good young players. Our trades have also been ordinary and the Pickett one was a waste of a pick the West Coast used the pick to get Rosa, we wouldn't mind him considering that Pickett is no longer there.

[Gouga 570]

Thoughts?

I was actually thinking the same thing this morning.

If we treat DB arrival as a new era it would have made sense to load up on KPPs ala Hawthorn. Both Henderson and Rance would have been available to us.

That leaves time for them to develop while we load up on midfielders and a ruckmen in the next draft.

However DB did not take that approach. He went for the best kids available. Most teams are split on the two approaches.

The advantage of the Hawthorn approach is you address a particular problem in the one hit over a couple of years. However is there a cost? Lack of quality in other areas?

Both methods have merit. I'd lean towards the Hawthorn approach but will not agrue with DB's approach. After all he is the one that is ultimately responsible, and I know I wouldn't want to have blokes like RobbieF analysing all of my decisions!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I agree Bartel, Steve Johnson and Ablett are great players but I can't give you Gardiner or David Johnson, both fringe and left out of the GF side.

Bartel at 7 meant we couldn't get him even if we wanted too and without the new f/s rule Ablett was never going anywhere but Geelong. As your concerned with OUR recruting we can conclude that CC and ND missed out on Steve Johnson only that year.

The 2001 draft made up 3 out of 22 of Geelong's premiership players which I believe supports my statement that good recruiting is not about cashing on one draft but being consistent over many which is exactly what Geelong were and I believe Melbourne are (or appear to) becoming.

What about James Kelly, did you miss him?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Both methods have merit. I'd lean towards the Hawthorn approach but will not agrue with DB's approach. After all he is the one that is ultimately responsible, and I know I wouldn't want to have blokes like RobbieF analysing all of my decisions!

Sorry I thought this was a discussion board, my mistake.

[Gouga 570]

What about James Kelly, did you miss him?

Sorry I forgot James Kelly, make that 4 out of 22.

[dee3 0]

I know it is far to early to tell, but are we expecting any from the crop we drafted last year to be our next superstar. Mclean, Sylvia, Bate, Dunn, Newton and the like are not our superstar's that we are looking for..will Grimes, maric or Morton fill that void... who knows, but we need one... SOON!

[Gouga 570]

Sorry I thought this was a discussion board, my mistake.

No your right, it is a discussion board. My point was I wouldn't want to be the person who holds the hopes of 220,000 supporters, including yourself, and all the criticism that comes with it.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Our 2000 and 2001 selections were a disaster and of the 8 players selected there is only one left, Brad Miller. Four of the players selected never played one game between them, one played about 10 games and the other two played about 30 games each.

.....

2001 might have been a disaster for selections, but 2000 selections were marred by salary cap penalties and the one legitimate selection we had in that year was Scott Thompson. A gem of choice at 16. Our next selection was 62 and its a lottery that far down the draft. Its a pity that subsequent issues forced him home. We really need him. FWIW, we did not have chance to select Bartel at 7 and if at the time I had to choose between Johnson and Thompson. It would be Thompson every time. Its only in the last year Johnson has played good footballer. Before that he was selfish, lazy and undisciplined. God knows we have that type of players in spades at MFC.

I would also add that the impact of the 1999 and 2000 salary cap penalties have indeed robbed the list for the past 8 years of capable mature players.

[Gouga 570]

I know it is far to early to tell, but are we expecting any from the crop we drafted last year to be our next superstar. Mclean, Sylvia, Bate, Dunn, Newton and the like are not our superstar's that we are looking for..will Grimes, maric or Morton fill that void... who knows, but we need one... SOON!

People seem to be crying out for a superstar but is that really what is required? Ever heard that phrase a champion team will always beat a team of champions.

My point is as before, consistency is the key. We build that champion team and our standouts will achieve automatic superstar status!

[mo64 5,875]

I know it is far to early to tell, but are we expecting any from the crop we drafted last year to be our next superstar. Mclean, Sylvia, Bate, Dunn, Newton and the like are not our superstar's that we are looking for..will Grimes, maric or Morton fill that void... who knows, but we need one... SOON!

How do you define "superstar"? Who were rated as superstars in the season prior to the Swans and Geelong winning their flags? Nobody thought that the Swans would make the finals in 2005, and Geelong didn't make the finals in 2006, and their supporters were bemoaning their slow midfield.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Ok... That's a bit more like it...

- I HAVE given proof. Over and over... Every month someone else comes on here and decides that the generally accepted wisdom, with great researchers like Jaded, RR, Deanox and others is garbage... then someone withmore technical smarts gets on and retrieves the stats and the point is proven... Sadly, you are no exception in that when we quote the stats, you cling to your reasoning without addressing these facts in any reasonable way... What I'm trying to say is, the majority here, who've said their piece, will not change your mind no matter WHAT we say... So why bother... Also... Net is expensive where I live, so you'll just have to forgive me for not spending hours on the net.

- Wasn't aware we were having a specific time-frame. Are we talking just CAC or the club here?

- Go through the players again. They have all proven SOMETHING. You're right, some haven't made it yet, but all have had more than 2 seasons (or WILL have more than 2 seasns) for a reason... But I can't say I'm surprised you glossed over that point and made it all about who has "made it." It never ceases to amaze me how people write off the list the fact the good players on the list are still so young...

- Geelong... F/S. Brisbane, benefitted from a HUGE amount of concessions and were disastrous for years, while recruiting the best players in the land. They bottomed out properly, we haven't. Adelaide and West Coast have had better coaches and a bucketload more money. Adeladie turned average players into guns as a habit, and have the best footy technology in the land. West Coast have a great coach, and have gotten VERY lucky with their recruiting. But tey have had their faults. They haven't had a good FF for ages, and a year-and-a-bit ago they were considered the perfect team.

- Once again you miss the point. It's not about who we missed at all... We have about the same amount of duds as everyone else... but AGAIN, gloss over that fact and dig into MFC... It's noble work you're doing.

- You would presume I hadn't looked at the recruiting stats wouldn't you? I've looked over them again and again and can quote most of the details of our recruiting history over the past 5-10 years off the top of my head... Don't think you're "enlightening" me to details I'm not certain of... I choose not to quote them because it would make no difference to your reasoning. I've written papers shorter than this, and you've managed to miss the point at every turn ANYWAY.

- Once again... I never said we were SUPER recruiters... We've had some good ones, and some bad ones... No GREAT ones just yet... We are about breaking even, and have been up for a while... The recruiting I call "good" will come to fruition years from now, not right away. AGIAIN - There's a reason CAC was headhunted... He recruited some gems from out of NOWHERE... His great faults were his KP recruitment and "Star" recruitment which leave something to be desired... On the first point, I think people are right. We're still relying on Neitz and White as our big boys and are still struglling for a KP back. So why do you think I'm calling them "super." We are weak in that area. On the STAR player point, again I agree somewhat, but I would say this... McLean playing for the Bombers or Pies would be considered a star... NO demon will be considered a star until we have a bigger presence in the AFL, media, and among the commentators. The Bulldogs suffer in the same way. Brad Johnson is a good example. It took him til he was past 250 games to get noticed. The Dogs just aren't "sexy" enough.

I think I'm done with this debate. Our recruiting hasnt been perfect, but it has had hughlights. We've been middle of the road in the last 10 years in the regard, and as a result our ladder results have been... well... middle of the road. When we bottom out, and in a year or two from now when Bailey has the list he wants in one place, we'll start to climb again. This is modern recruiting, mate.

And before you take another swing at me... Try to get rid of the idea that I'm "SATISFIED" with what we're like at the moment. I'm hurting like everyone else. I am disagreeing with YOU... ButI continue to support the direction the club is taking. I don't expect perfection like the so-called "experts" on this site, and as such I am willing to wear a few Molans, Rogers and Smiths... If we get many more, I'll join your merry brigade, but for now I think where we are is a reflection of the decisions DB has made for our future, our list turnover, our coach change-over and a severe lack of funds... not a reflection of disastrous recruiting... If you quote me as thinking our recruitment is "super" again or that I am happy with where we stand, I'll know you've not bothered to read my post.

I have another point for you to consider though. I was thinking about this last night. I feel our recruitment is flawed in it's conception in one important way. Let's assume that KP players take longer to develop, let's say 3 years at a minimum. Further, let's assume these players are harder to recruit as they are so young and under-developed, and predcition plays a bigger part in the success of a recruiter... Wouldn't it make sense then to use both your high picks AND your speculative picks to recruit good quality talls a few seasons in a row... and THEN take on the problem of addressing the smaller players. We have a history of our smaller blokes making nearly immediate impact on the team... Jones, McLean, Petterd to name a few... By the time our talls are in their prime (25-30) these guys will be nearing the end of their careers... Now I know we got Bate and Dunn, as well as Juice as a speculative pick all in one year... But Dunn has looked shaky as a KP player, and Juice is still a work in progress...

Basically I'm saying the Hawthorn model is what we should have gone for. Get the Rougheads and Franklins and a few others... give it five or so years and wait for ONE of them to become a star. Dunstall has gone on the record as saying that around the time these two players were picked up, the general consensus was that there were no quality KP players coming through the system, so the Hawks would have a "monopoly." I think there's sme truth to this.

Thoughts?

Let me start by saying that I don't read this board very often so the proof that you have given over and over again has slipped by me.

Secondly I have read the bold section above but quite frankly I have no idea what you are saying or what point you are trying to make.

Having said that, you can make all the assertions you like however I prefer facts. The young players we have may or may not be very good or even champions but at the moment they are not, they are yet to prove anything in the football world. Bate, Dunne and Newton IMO are reasonable players but not champions and they have a long way to go to prove they are even 150 game players, you may think otherwise. The young players we played last year are mainly untested and time will tell whether they are any good, the same with our recruits from last year.

So I will close on that note as it seems to me that if you don't agree with the mainstream your opinion is neither valued or required.

P.S you certainly read a lot of things in to my posts most of which I never said.

[dee3 0]

People seem to be crying out for a superstar but is that really what is required? Ever heard that phrase a champion team will always beat a team of champions.

My point is as before, consistency is the key. We build that champion team and our standouts will achieve automatic superstar status!

Thats a romantic cliche that i expect to see come true in a disney movie. Honestly, People say the Swans were a hard working even side, they still had Barry Hall, Adam Goodes. Eagles..well, you name it, they had them in spades like Brisbane.. Maybe Port were the team without a genuine superstar, but Tredrea at his peak was a superstar.. Everyteam has them, we dont. It's ok building a team around good honest players like we have done for 10 years, but when you check the record books, what have we really acheived.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

People seem to be crying out for a superstar but is that really what is required? Ever heard that phrase a champion team will always beat a team of champions.

My point is as before, consistency is the key. We build that champion team and our standouts will achieve automatic superstar status!

Why is a champion team a champion team? What makes a team better than other teams? Why do some teams rise to the occassion of September and others dont?

If you look at the Premiership team over the last 15 years, each team has had one or two or more players who are stars. They are the players who will lift at critical times to allow a side to overcome others. By their performance, star players make other players around them better. Their individual performances within a side make their teammates better. They win more ball more often they make better use of the ball more often and they do it when the pressure is really on and the game is there to be won.

MFC needs them badly. Until we have one or more players that are prepared and capable of taking the steps to be that star we will languish.

And IMO we have not had a true star since Robert Flower. We have had a number of talented players through our ranks but none have progressed to the higher level. The Club has appointed an additional development coach to harness the ability of the younger talent we have to maximise the opportunity. I hope it pays dividends.

[dee3 0]

How do you define "superstar"? Who were rated as superstars in the season prior to the Swans and Geelong winning their flags? Nobody thought that the Swans would make the finals in 2005, and Geelong didn't make the finals in 2006, and their supporters were bemoaning their slow midfield.

a superstar is a player with a certain quality that lifts a team from the depths of despair to the greatest heights by just being out on the field. Cmon, the swans had superstars, and superstars in the making, as did the cats..it's not hard to see the difference between were they were at as side before winning a flag and were we are at..

I am willing to give the crop of new guys a few years, but superstars are groomed, they are inherit a presence.. cant see any on our list..sorry!